Tag: Ernest Rutherford

Dear Quote Investigator: The experimental physicist Ernest Rutherford won a Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on radiation. Later his research group at the Cavendish Laboratory of the University of Cambridge split the nucleus of an atom in a controlled manner. Yet, he doubted that atomic physics would produce a practical source of power, and he referred to such speculations as “talking moonshine”, i.e., talking foolishly. Would you please help me to find a citation?

Quote Investigator: “The New York Times” printed an article with a dateline of September 11, 1933 that included a quotation from Lord Ernest Rutherford who was addressing a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The scientist’s words were carefully hedged. Emphasis added to excerpts by QI: 1

“Any one who says that with the means at present at our disposal and with our present knowledge we can utilize atomic energy is talking moonshine,” was the dictum of the famous head of the Cavendish Laboratory.

An article from the widely distributed Associated Press news service with the same dateline presented a different and more emphatic quotation: 2

Lord Rutherford discredited the theory that that immense power could be derived from the breakdown of the atom. “Energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing,” he said before the British association for the advancement of science. “Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.”

QI does not know which of these two quotations is accurate. It is conceivable that he made both remarks at different times during his presentation. Yet, there is a third version which is given below; hence, uncertainty about his words seems to be unavoidable.

Dear Quote Investigator: Recently, while reading about the discovery of a new species of frog I marveled at the remarkable diversity of the biosphere. But, I was also reminded of the following humorous and barbed assertion:

All science is either physics or stamp collecting.

This statement has often been attributed to the prominent physicist Ernest Rutherford, but the only citation I have seen was published in the 1960s which was long after the great experimentalist’s death in 1937. What do you think?

Quote Investigator: The earliest evidence located by QI appeared in the 1939 book “The Social Function of Science” by physicist John Desmond Bernal who ascribed the idea to Ernest Rutherford, but Bernal did not present a precise quotation. Boldface has been added to excerpts: 1

There must be for any effective scientist an intrinsic appreciation and enjoyment of the actual operations he is performing, and this appreciation will not differ essentially from that of the artist or the sportsman. Rutherford used to divide science into physics and stamp collecting, but if the analogy were to be carried through, it would be reduced to “gadgeteering” and stamp collecting.

In 1945 a periodical published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science called “The Scientific Monthly” printed an instance attributed to Rutherford: 2

In this sense all studies become “scientific” to the degree that they aspire to reach the condition of physics and seek to imitate closely the complex interweaving of selective observation, controlled experiment, and mathematical elaboration which is to be found there. Those who favor this definition may take as their slogan the epigram attributed to the late Sir Ernest Rutherford that science consists only of “physics and stamp-collecting.”

QI has found the saying in neither an interview nor a book nor an article by Rutherford; in short, there was no direct link between the scientist and the adage. Indeed, it was possible that Bernal served as the only avenue for transmission of the sharp apothegm.

1945 September, The Scientific Monthly, Volume 61, Number 3, A Lend-Lease Program for Philosophy and Science by Max Black, Start Page 165, Quote Page 168, Column 1, Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science. (JSTOR) link↩